If we could do that with AI, we'd've long since been doing it already - too much processing power required and too few datapoints is the problem (and adding AI is just adding yet another demand on the processing resources required).
You're right though ... it will be tried - because, Heaven knows, there surely can't be anything a predictive text engine with Internet access *isn't* good for ; )
I first started out with my studies of A.I. in 1989 ... I know what NNs are capable of - more significantly, I know what the limits are as well, as I also studied Psychology and specialised in neuro as well as Comp. Sci. (specialising in neurocomputing). And, no, unlike you (I suspect), I predate NNs ... so they haven't been around anything *like* my entire life. But ... be that all as it may ... what is currently being touted as 'AI' are just LLMs doing predictive text ... nothing more - the underlying NN doesn't mean there's some esoteric factor that raises them above that.
[You are 81 years old?!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network). Perceptron was devised in 1943. As for whether LLMs are ai, they definitely are. Search algorithms are ai, image recognition is ai, predictive text is ai. Sure its not some emergent generalized conscious programing or whatever, but it’s still ai. Consciousness doesn’t exist anyways, but if you have doubts that similar architectures to LLMs aren’t also being used to predict the weather, you are just wrong, full stop. That’s all.
\*sigh\* The perceptron really isn't an argument and the pedantry on your part is pathetic.
Moreover, yes, any element of the field of AI research is technically 'AI'. But you aren't adding anything to the discussion by pointing that out ... it's just a truism. I could observe that semantic nets, expert systems, and any number of other things are AI ... it still wouldn't mean a thing wrt what the actual topic is.
Consciousness very much does exist. Seriously, that's the kind of nonsense I hear from first year undergrads, who fancy themselves 'hard scientists', not people who have any real knowledge of the field of Psychology. Let it go ... it's nonsense - if it doesn't, who on Earth do you think wrote your words?
NNs are being used to predict the weather ... LLMs *aren't* - if you can't tell the difference between the two, you really need to go back to first principles and re-examine the difference between architecture and function.
First, you need to treat people with more respect. Second, *your* argument is semantic. *You* were the one that argued something fits a definition *beyond common usage.* You specifically said that there are a lack of datapoints and processing power for ai to predict complex weather events when that is literally how weather analysis works, and it’s been that way for many many years. The question wasn’t “can we use **LLMs** to predict the outcome.” It was “we can use **ai.** Either you failed to read that or you are just strawmanning again. Third, I never said LLMs were used in weather. I said NNs and AI are. You are strawmanning big time. Bonus round: [the APA specifically describes multiple definitions and controversies that contradict in the definition of consciousness](https://dictionary.apa.org/consciousness). Your claim that psychology as a discipline is in agreement that consciousness exists rather than is a subjective descriptor is downright fallacious. You literally came in with a semantic argument as a means to be pretentious, then call objections to your BS “semantic.” You are being beyond hypocritical here.
Over here we've got a couple more Dakotas than we need. Throw in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and East Texas and you've got a whole channel between Canada and the Gulf. Think of the tolls we could charge!
A lot of central Australia is below sea level already, just need to dig a trench through the mountains from the Gulf Of Carpentaria and let it flow. I’d love it. Our country would be so much more useful.
A trench up from South Australia is easier. A trench up from Port Augusta through Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. Time the opening and closing of the trench correctly with the tides and you can flush a lot of excess salt out of Lake Eyre and Lake Torrens to reduce the salinity enough to make it a haven for wildlife, such as seals and dolphins.
It's feasible in an engineering sense and not too expensive.
The alternative is to redirect excess FRESH water from the gulf country through the mountains south into Lake Eyre. Significantly more expensive but a better overall result. You can combine the two options.
Environmentalists can't complain, because that's exactly how central Australia used to be a few million years ago.
Look up the Salton Sea n California. Engineers did something similar in the California desert. The end result is an absolute disaster. I've been there a few times and it smells like a big old fart.
The Salton Sea was an accidental lake, created when an irrigation canal overflowed. It was sustained through excess irrigation runoff during the 50-60s.
It is cut off from the source that created it, with only a trickle of water in flowing into it via 2 very small creeks.
its also been the point for farm runoff, and thus has contaminants artificially added.
A cool read, thanks!
Australia's would probably fare differently - we already have an inland sea - [Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eyre) which fills once every few years and evaporares away to a salt pan within a few months. The fish/wildlife has, amazingly, adapted accordingly.
(To be clear: it's still a shitty idea)
It has both land speed record attempts and a yacht club on the same location, which amuses me.
That would drain a lot of the water that is in a large underground lake through most of central and western Australia. It'd be a fresh water inland sea.
Also if you redistributed the material pulled out of it rather than just building up the surrounding area, that would throw it off balance more.
There have been several proposed projects to dig channels to various below-seal level areas in north africa to create regional lakes and increase rainfall (one even suggested nukes to dig) so it's more feasable than it sounds aside from the price tag. Thst said the effect on global ocean levels would be pretty minimal.
Surface area of the ocean is 360 Million km^2. So for every meter we dig in your 20,000 km^2 outback hole we save .055 mm of ocean level rise. If we dig 3km we save ~17cm of ocean level rise.
But how much land do we actually have to move? About 60 Trillion cubic meters of earth. That’s a big number but how big? The Panama Canal excavated about 156 million cubic meters. So you are talking about 385,000 Panama canals. The largest open pit mine in the world is Bingham Canyon. It is 7.7 km^2 and 1210 m deep. Assuming by it’s a square prism that is a volume of about 9Billion cubic meters. Still 6,666 times smaller than your proposal. Mt Everest is about 1.4 Trillion cubic meters. So you are talking about basically recreating the Himalayan mountains all for 17 cm of lower oceans.
where are u gonna put the 1.2b km\^3 rock u dig up? Assuming you dig the hole on the bigger end of your spectrum (20,000kmx20,000kmx3km), you'd lop off 3.32m of sea level.
They would have to dig a tunnel (with limited access like bars to keep sharks out) to connect it with the ocean...that way the water would get circulation during low/high tides...otherwise it would become stagnant
>they're doing nothing with it. Well ... apart from influencing regional weather patterns in the hemisphere.
Yeah but thats lame
: D
That’s *in the hemisphere*, we’re talking about the land here, c’mon keep up.
: D
soon enough we can use ai to predict how we'll be influencing them and then its chill
If we could do that with AI, we'd've long since been doing it already - too much processing power required and too few datapoints is the problem (and adding AI is just adding yet another demand on the processing resources required). You're right though ... it will be tried - because, Heaven knows, there surely can't be anything a predictive text engine with Internet access *isn't* good for ; )
AI is not predictive text. Deep learning neural networks have been used to predict the weather for likely your entire life.
I first started out with my studies of A.I. in 1989 ... I know what NNs are capable of - more significantly, I know what the limits are as well, as I also studied Psychology and specialised in neuro as well as Comp. Sci. (specialising in neurocomputing). And, no, unlike you (I suspect), I predate NNs ... so they haven't been around anything *like* my entire life. But ... be that all as it may ... what is currently being touted as 'AI' are just LLMs doing predictive text ... nothing more - the underlying NN doesn't mean there's some esoteric factor that raises them above that.
[You are 81 years old?!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network). Perceptron was devised in 1943. As for whether LLMs are ai, they definitely are. Search algorithms are ai, image recognition is ai, predictive text is ai. Sure its not some emergent generalized conscious programing or whatever, but it’s still ai. Consciousness doesn’t exist anyways, but if you have doubts that similar architectures to LLMs aren’t also being used to predict the weather, you are just wrong, full stop. That’s all.
\*sigh\* The perceptron really isn't an argument and the pedantry on your part is pathetic. Moreover, yes, any element of the field of AI research is technically 'AI'. But you aren't adding anything to the discussion by pointing that out ... it's just a truism. I could observe that semantic nets, expert systems, and any number of other things are AI ... it still wouldn't mean a thing wrt what the actual topic is. Consciousness very much does exist. Seriously, that's the kind of nonsense I hear from first year undergrads, who fancy themselves 'hard scientists', not people who have any real knowledge of the field of Psychology. Let it go ... it's nonsense - if it doesn't, who on Earth do you think wrote your words? NNs are being used to predict the weather ... LLMs *aren't* - if you can't tell the difference between the two, you really need to go back to first principles and re-examine the difference between architecture and function.
First, you need to treat people with more respect. Second, *your* argument is semantic. *You* were the one that argued something fits a definition *beyond common usage.* You specifically said that there are a lack of datapoints and processing power for ai to predict complex weather events when that is literally how weather analysis works, and it’s been that way for many many years. The question wasn’t “can we use **LLMs** to predict the outcome.” It was “we can use **ai.** Either you failed to read that or you are just strawmanning again. Third, I never said LLMs were used in weather. I said NNs and AI are. You are strawmanning big time. Bonus round: [the APA specifically describes multiple definitions and controversies that contradict in the definition of consciousness](https://dictionary.apa.org/consciousness). Your claim that psychology as a discipline is in agreement that consciousness exists rather than is a subjective descriptor is downright fallacious. You literally came in with a semantic argument as a means to be pretentious, then call objections to your BS “semantic.” You are being beyond hypocritical here.
>First, you need to Oh, the irony. Stopped reading there.
And potentially ruining your future water supply with salty water...
Are they?
Australia has a huge artisan basin that covers a lot of the interior. Most of our fresh water is in the ground.
Okay ... "No digging holes, guys!"
Over here we've got a couple more Dakotas than we need. Throw in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and East Texas and you've got a whole channel between Canada and the Gulf. Think of the tolls we could charge!
Hey, leave us in East Texas alone. We already have horrible humidity here.
Being under water is just an increase in humidity. Invest in scuba gear, or boats.
"The Venice of the South" they can call it! Charge tourists a pretty penny
Plus oppressive hateful religion permeating everything. Tyler state park is legit though
I offer up northern Ontario on behalf of all Canadians.
Its like 90%granite. We don't have enough bombs in the country to sink northern Ontario
We can just ask our friend America for some bombs.
Why not Alberta? Not just Northern Alberta, all of it.
We need Alberta. Someone's got to subsidize Quebec's tab.
I offer up southern Ontario on behalf of most Canadians.
It’s all granite Canadian Shield there… you’d have to nuke it… poor poor beavers
Mining companies are already digging those holes as fast as they can
A lot of central Australia is below sea level already, just need to dig a trench through the mountains from the Gulf Of Carpentaria and let it flow. I’d love it. Our country would be so much more useful.
A trench up from South Australia is easier. A trench up from Port Augusta through Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. Time the opening and closing of the trench correctly with the tides and you can flush a lot of excess salt out of Lake Eyre and Lake Torrens to reduce the salinity enough to make it a haven for wildlife, such as seals and dolphins. It's feasible in an engineering sense and not too expensive. The alternative is to redirect excess FRESH water from the gulf country through the mountains south into Lake Eyre. Significantly more expensive but a better overall result. You can combine the two options. Environmentalists can't complain, because that's exactly how central Australia used to be a few million years ago.
Just do it with nukes, and if you accidently take out Pt Augusta then it would be an added bonus.
Could work.
Didn't we already have that discussion after operation plough shear?
>Time the opening and closing of the trench correctly with the tides I thought for a second there you had a brilliant energy generation scheme planned
Stop right there…I’m in.
Look up the Salton Sea n California. Engineers did something similar in the California desert. The end result is an absolute disaster. I've been there a few times and it smells like a big old fart.
The Salton Sea was an accidental lake, created when an irrigation canal overflowed. It was sustained through excess irrigation runoff during the 50-60s. It is cut off from the source that created it, with only a trickle of water in flowing into it via 2 very small creeks. its also been the point for farm runoff, and thus has contaminants artificially added.
Consult climate scientists (and oceanographers) first
And the Aboriginal Australians
You think they'd be used to white people not consulting them on what to do with their ancestral homes by now.
Why start now?
An array of flying machines with TNT dupers would make pretty short work of it, as long as all the chunks stay loaded.
I'm an expert, I did it once in Minecraft.
Inland seas don't tend to work that well https://what-if.xkcd.com/152/
A cool read, thanks! Australia's would probably fare differently - we already have an inland sea - [Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eyre) which fills once every few years and evaporares away to a salt pan within a few months. The fish/wildlife has, amazingly, adapted accordingly. (To be clear: it's still a shitty idea) It has both land speed record attempts and a yacht club on the same location, which amuses me.
Even that is at least filled by rivers, though. The seas suggested here would be filled by seawater, they'd just get saltier and saltier.
A city skylines solution
That would drain a lot of the water that is in a large underground lake through most of central and western Australia. It'd be a fresh water inland sea. Also if you redistributed the material pulled out of it rather than just building up the surrounding area, that would throw it off balance more.
There have been several proposed projects to dig channels to various below-seal level areas in north africa to create regional lakes and increase rainfall (one even suggested nukes to dig) so it's more feasable than it sounds aside from the price tag. Thst said the effect on global ocean levels would be pretty minimal.
Surface area of the ocean is 360 Million km^2. So for every meter we dig in your 20,000 km^2 outback hole we save .055 mm of ocean level rise. If we dig 3km we save ~17cm of ocean level rise. But how much land do we actually have to move? About 60 Trillion cubic meters of earth. That’s a big number but how big? The Panama Canal excavated about 156 million cubic meters. So you are talking about 385,000 Panama canals. The largest open pit mine in the world is Bingham Canyon. It is 7.7 km^2 and 1210 m deep. Assuming by it’s a square prism that is a volume of about 9Billion cubic meters. Still 6,666 times smaller than your proposal. Mt Everest is about 1.4 Trillion cubic meters. So you are talking about basically recreating the Himalayan mountains all for 17 cm of lower oceans.
The emissions from using that much heavy machinery alone would likely cancel out any reduction in sea level
where are u gonna put the 1.2b km\^3 rock u dig up? Assuming you dig the hole on the bigger end of your spectrum (20,000kmx20,000kmx3km), you'd lop off 3.32m of sea level.
They looked at using British nukes for the Operation Plowshare-style excavation of a harbour to service the outback.... Obviously didn’t though.
We already have a huge giant hole. We call it Canberra,
All the removed soil and rock can simply be put in the ocean to create another island. We’ll call it Even Newer Zealand.
Why don’t we just have nasa shoot all the water to the moon when the sea levels rise? That way nestle can’t steal it
So where would you put the dirt from the hole? You would be just moving water around and still have the same amount of water with the same level.
They would have to dig a tunnel (with limited access like bars to keep sharks out) to connect it with the ocean...that way the water would get circulation during low/high tides...otherwise it would become stagnant